A Simple Question, Pt. II

A few days ago, I asked a very simple question:

Q. Where in our Constitution does it acknowledge or state that the U.S. relies upon the Judeo-Christian God, Christianity, or Christian morality?

A. It doesn't. Period. God is not mentioned once. Religion appears exactly twice, once in Article VI where the "no religious test" prohibition is articulated, and once in the First Amendment prohibiting the establishment of any religion.

To which I have one follow up question:

If there is no acknowledgment of the Judeo-Christian God in the U.S. Constitution, yet we are to impute a Christian foundation to our government, isn't that the classic definition of "judicial activism"? Reading into our constitution words and ideas that don't exist? Creating a law of the land that is not documented or even acknowledged anywhere within the confines of the text of the U.S. Constitution?

By all means, let's put an end to the judicial activism! Cast out any notion that this country's government owes any allegiance whatsoever to any creeping mysticism or fairy tales.

God is dead! God remains dead. And you have killed him.

Inherit the Wind

May 5, 1925. A warrant is issued for the arrest of John Scopes, a high school biology teacher, for teaching evolution—in violation of state law—to a high school biology class in Dayton, TN.

The result: God goes and trial and fails to appear to defend "His" creation. In lieu of God, William Jennings Bryan shows up to defend God and gets hammered for being a complete idiot—which I suppose is a penalty for not using the gift with which his creator had endowed him.

Lawrence, J. and Lee, R.E. (1955). Inherit the Wind. Bantam:New York (pp. 83-84).

Drummond: . . . Gentlemen, progress has never been a bargain. You've got to pay for it. Sometimes I think there's a man behind a counter who says, "All right, you can have a telephone; but you'll have to give up privacy, the charm of distance. Madam, you may vote; but at a price; you lose right to retreat behind a powder-puff or a petticoat. Mister, you may conquer the air; but the birds will lose their wonder and the clouds will smell of gasoline!" . . . Darwin moved us forward to a hilltop, where we could look back and see the way from which we came. But for this view, this insight, this knowledge, we must abandon our faith in the pleasant poetry of Genesis.

Brady: We must not abandon faith!

Drummond: Then why did God plague us with the power to think? Mr. Brady, why do you deny the one faculty which lifts man above all other creatures on the earth: the power of his brain to reason. What other merit have we? The elephant is larger, the horse is stronger and swifter, the butterfly more beautiful, the mosquito more prolific, even the simple sponge is more durable! . . . Or does a sponge think?

Brady: I don't know. I'm a man, not a sponge.

Drummon: Do you think a sponge thinks?

Brady: If the Lord wishes a sponge to think, it thinks.

Drummond: Does a man have the same privileges that a sponge does?

Brady: Of course.

Drummond: This man wishes to be accorded the same privilege as a sponge! He wishes to think!

And I, too, wish to think.

A Simple Question

I have a very simple question.

To anyone that wants to argue that the United States is a Christian nation or founded upon the Christian religion, I ask you this:

Q. Where in our Constitution does it acknowledge or state that the U.S. relies upon the Judeo-Christian God, Christianity, or Christian morality?

A. It doesn't. Period. God is not mentioned once. Religion appears exactly twice, once in Article VI where the "no religious test" prohibition is articulated, and once in the First Amendment prohibiting the establishment of any religion.

Now, if an entire Constitutional Convention comprised of 55 delegates from 12 states, laboring for 2.5 months, sought to "establish a Christian nation," it would stand to reason that our Constitution would be more reflective of the alleged Christian establishment than a document devoid of reference to the Judeo-Christian God and explicitly banning any establishment, requirement, or reliance upon any "religion" which, by definition, includes Christianity.

Or did they just forget to add that part in?

Of course, there have been multiple attempts to amend our Constitution to explicitly include Christianity: In 1863, 1874, 1896, 1910, 1954, 1962, and 1998. All have failed.

Q. So where is the Christian God?

A. NOT in the U.S. Constitution.

So, what is the evidence that this country is a "Christian nation" or in any way "founded upon the Christian religion"?

Bumper Sticker

Your God is a False God.

Yes, your God.

"Virgin"?

Food for thought . . .

Paul Verhoeven, director of Basic Instinct and Showgirls is working up a biopic of Jesus that makes the claim that Jesus was born of the rape of the "Virgin" Mary by a Roman soldier.

In his upcoming biography of Jesus, "Basic Instinct" director Paul Verhoeven will make the shocking claim that Christ probably was the son of Mary and a Roman soldier who raped her during the Jewish uprising in Galilee.

Which is an interesting hypothesis to explain the "virgin" conception. Of course, not all agree:

Catholic League President Bill Donohue called Verhoeven's claim about Mary "laughable."

"Here we go again with idle speculation grounded in absolutely nothing," Donohue told FOXNews.com. "He has no empirical evidence to support his claim, which is why they say 'may have.'"

And the "empirical evidence" supporting the claim of the immaculate conception is . . . what? None. Which makes the immaculate conception equally nothing more than "idle speculation." However, Verhoeven's claim at least has plausibility in reality and doesn't have to rely on some mystical, make-believe fantasy and an Invisible Voo-Doo Daddy in the Clouds magically impregnating women against their will . . . which would constitute rape in my book.

And of course, Donahue would have us completely disregard the fact that the more accurate translation of the biblical account of Mary and her conception tells of a "young woman," not a "virgin"--"virgin" being a mistranslation.

Yes, Mr. Donahue, which version is it that is "laughable"?

Sunday Coffee

"Light"

Photo by Becca00.

Sunday coffee in a warm quiet place, watching the sun creep across the floor, and a lazy day eases by as myriad ideas germinate in our heads.

I've Got Your Flag Pin . . .

. . . right fucking here.

What are the issues that the United States faces today?

• Iraq/Afghanistan

• Middle East

• The U.S. Economy

  • Mortgage Crisis

  • Credit Crisis

  • College Tuition/Student Loans

  • Foreign Trade Agreements

  • U.S. Manufacturing and Unions

  • Stagnant Wages

  • Executive Pay (yes, this actually impacts the economy)

• Education

  • Elementary Education Standards

  • Overall Quality of Education

  • High School Graduation Rates

  • Accessibility of College Education

• The U.S. Constitution

• Civil LIberites

• The Environment

• Energy Policy (a real energy policy that significantly incents the development of renewable sources of energy and independence from fossil fuels)

But we have a debate between those vying for the political leadership position where they will be able to address these issues and the debate focuses on ... fucking flag pins and people's ministers. It's complete bullshit.

And any of the gaggle of jackasses who have been trying to justify the debate questions as "legitimate" or somehow "relevant" might just as well quit their fucking jobs and go home. Because if the best you can do to be "legitimate" or "relevant" is to ask inane, irrelevant shit like we saw last week, then there is absolutely no need for you to be doing your job.

Random iPod Rotation

Stuff that's been rotating on my iPod lately (mostly during my workouts).

1. Lake Shore Drive, Aliotta Haynes Jeremiah

2. Det Snurrar I Min Skalle, Familjen

3. High Roller, Crystal Method

4. Ten Seconds Before Sunrise, DJ Tiësto

5. First Cool Hive, Moby

6. Testament, VNV Nation

7. Cities in Dust, Junkie XL

8. Teardrop, Massive Attack

9. Sweet Misery, DJ Tiësto

10. Ohne Dich, Rammstein

11. Run, Snow Patrol

12. Standing (Motion), VNV Nation

13. More Human than Human, White Zombie

14. Let the Day Begin, The Call

Enjoy.

Pascal's Wager

As it pops up again and again, this requires continual treatment.

Pascal's Wager, in some form or another, is frequently used to support belief in a god and adherence to a particular religious morality. Generally, Pascal's Wager goes something like this:

If we wager for God (believe in and dedicate our lives to), then we can have an afterlife of eternal bliss. If God does not exist, then there is no consequence for the afterlife. However, If we wager against God, and he does exist, then we risk an afterlife of eternal misery in hell.

More simply stated, it is illustrated like this:

"Belief in God" + "God Exists" = +1
"Non-Belief in God" + "God Exists" = -1
"Belief or Non-Belief in God" + "God Does Not Exist" = 0

The "logical" conclusion being that it is better to believe in God than to not believe in God.

The Flaw of Infinite Gods

Among the multiple flaws in Pascal's logic is that the wager is not belief in the Judeo-Christian God versus non-belief. It is belief in the Judeo-Christian God, vs. belief in any other possible God (past, present, and future), vs. non-belief. Logically, there is an almost infinitely large pool of possible gods (to include the Flying Spaghetti Monster) from which to choose to believe. Even using only 2 gods, God-A and God-B, we begin to see the real nature of the wager.

"Belief in God-A" + "God-A Exists" = +1
"Belief in God-A" + "God-B Exists" = -1
"Non-Belief in God-A" + "God-A Exists" = -1

"Belief in God-B" + "God-B Exists" = +1
"Belief in God-B" + "God-A Exists" = -1
"Non-Belief in God-B" + "God-B Exists" = -1

"Belief or Non-Belief in Any God" + "No God Exists" = 0

In the face of an almost infinitely large pool of gods to choose from, the selection of the "right" god becomes a far more precarious proposition. And how can anyone state with any degree of authority or certainty that their god is the "real" god, when evidence for all possible gods is equally non-existent for all of them?

Using Gods A and B from above, how can one assert the validity of God-A over God-B when there is no proof of either?

The Flaw of Mandated Belief

One of the most absurd tenets of Pascal's Wager is the idea that we can reduce belief to a statement. Following the logic of Pascal's Wager, the mathematical formula tells us only which is the more advantageous option—belief or non-belief. It offers no proof of the existence of a god. Yet the implied, unstated conclusion is that because it is mathematically more advantageous for us to believe than to not believe, we should therefore believe.

This misses entirely the fact that we can not make ourselves believe anything that the unbidden processes of our intellect do not believe. If I am told repeatedly "step on a crack and you'll break your mother's back," I can come to believe that to be true. However, in watching the world around me, accidentally stepping on cracks, watching other people step on cracks, my brain begins to take in evidence that stepping on a crack will not, in fact, break my mother's back.

It is at this point that my brain, taking in evidence and synthesizing it with all other evidence, concludes that the belief "step on a crack and you'll break your mother's back" is false. I can continue to state that I still believe it over and over, but it won't change the fact that my intellect has concluded otherwise.

The same thing goes for Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, the Great Pumpkin, etc. We can say that we believe in these fictional beings, but stating so does not change the conclusions our intellect has already made unconsciously.

The Flaw of the Right Belief

In the end, Pascal's Wager is merely another way to approach the philosophical question of what is the "right" morality, the "right" ethics, or the "right" belief. It is an attempt to reduce the Socratic dialogues to a simplistic mathematical equation.

The "right" belief is a tenuous thing that shifts wildly from culture to culture, religion to religion, and geography to geography. It also shifts wildly depending on the context and intellectual approach—"right" as defined by social predominance, or "right" as defined by individual intellect?

Who knows the correct belief and manner of a life in dedication to a set of principles? I certainly would not entertain the notion that such a question could be answered here, or by me, or in such a brief space as a blog entry.

Independent of any controlling religious ideology, it should be sufficient to live your life with respect for your fellow man, treat others as you would be treated, and try to encourage the best in each other.

The rest of religious morality is just window dressing designed to make fear overcome logic and reason.

Jeebus Fish

I mock religion. I mock the religion in which I was raised—my parents' religion—and all other religions. However, mocking the Jesus Fish isn't simply individual smugness or an affectation of superiority. When one decides to declare their ignorance for all to see, openly mocking such ignorange almost becomes an obligation.

Over at the National Review the resident R-Tard, The Doughy Pantload, regales us with his observations on atheists and the Jesus Fish.

Traditionally, the fish pictogram conjures the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well as the Greek word IXΘΥΣ, which means fish and also is an acronym for "Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior." Christians persecuted by the Romans used to draw the Jesus fish in the dirt as a way to tip off fellow Christians that they weren’t alone.

In America, these fish appear mostly on cars. Recently, however, it seems Jesus fish have become outnumbered by Darwin fish. No doubt you’ve seen these, too. The fish is "updated" with little feet on the bottom, and "IXΘΥΣ" or "Jesus" is replaced with either "Darwin" or "Evolve."

I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there’s the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.

Actually, I interpret the Darwin fish to be a statement of identity that says, "I'm willing to exercise my ability of rational thought and the scientific process to better understand the natural world, instead of relying on some dusty old mysticism born of ignorance." I guess in that respect, the Darwin folks actually are a bit more evolved—because it would appear that religious types haven't evolved the ability to think rationally.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing that "hate is not a family value." But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.

I have a Flying Spaghetti Monster Fish on my car, noodly appendages and all. It's posted right next to my Marine Corps emblem, veteran's plates, HRC equality sticker, and German flag. So what to make of that? How about simply deducing that the sum of an individual is more than an almalgamation of the stereotypes associated with different aspects of their identity? The human condition is far, far more complex than any stereotype, or collection of stereotypes, could ever reveal.

Dangerous! (?)

What kind of thinking is "dangerous"?

According to Rep. Monique Davis, a Chicago Democrat in the IL state legislature, atheism is dangerous thinking:

Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy -- it’s tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school. I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know? I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous--

Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?

Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court---

Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.

Being a confirmed atheist, rational thinker, and native Illinoisan, I can state with all honesty and candor that my atheism is a direct result of being born and raised in Illinois.

What is truly dangerous is the idea that a state legislator can abuse her position and use the bully pulpit with impunity to berate and browbeat someone simply because they do not subscribe to her brand of mysticism and bullshit.

Rep. Davis, go fuck yourself. Or at least resign. You are a disgrace to the very idea of public service.